Skepticism

EVENTS

Feminism in Tech is Cancer!

Feminism should be treated in the workplace the same way other hate speech and hateful ideologies are, through outright rejection.

Make it clear that your workspace is one which fosters open discussion and tolerance of difference of opinion. No one should be fearful for engaging in a conversation.

When hiring, look for posts and tweets of support for militant feminism during standard HR scans. Make this a normal part of your filtering process, just as you wouldn’t hire a Klansman or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The goals of most feminists don’t intersect with those of your company, as they wish to spend their time manufacturing outrage both within your company and on social media.

The best way to deal with the innovation killing drama that feminism brings is to never have it allowed into your organization to begin with.

It would be hilarious if there weren’t a lot of people in positions of influence who actually had these beliefs.

Love the inconsistent message!!!
“Make it clear that your workspace is one which fosters open discussion and tolerance of difference of opinion.”
“When hiring, look for posts and tweets of support for militant feminism during standard HR scans. Make this a normal part of your filtering process, just as you wouldn’t hire a Klansman or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.”
Wait?!? What happened to tolerance of difference of opinion???

Ugh. I have an otherwise respectable industry peer, very prominent, who thinks almost exactly like this. He publicly outright stated that he thinks the goal of women (like me) attending industry conventions is to deliberately cause drama. Incidentally I don’t think he ever watched my talk on my research after going on and on about how women simply don’t submit research as if there were no deeper cause to investigate.

I’ve definitely seen counter-examples, but it’s hard to be a woman in tech and not be a feminist; or if one isn’t really the activist type or well-versed in the jargon, it’s at least tough not to notice that something’s rotten in dodge. I’ve gotta think this guy just doesn’t like all the ladybusiness all up in his man-only zone.

I’d personally never take a job at a company that asked for my facebook password; I’d like to see that sort of thing outlawed. A potential employer can’t legally ask if I’m pregnant or married, if I have kids, what my religion or sexuality is, or what sort of medical issues I have, but they can force me to give them a password that will likely lead them to a full or subset of all that information? Um, no. This is why the hubby facebooks under the name of our dog.

Racial equality should be treated in the workplace the same way other hate speech and hateful ideologies are, through outright rejection.

Make it clear that your workspace is one which fosters open discussion and tolerance of difference of opinion. No one should be fearful for engaging in a conversation.

When hiring, look for posts and tweets of support for militant racial equality during standard HR scans. Make this a normal part of your filtering process, just as you wouldn’t hire a Klansman or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

The goals of most racial equalists don’t intersect with those of your company, as they wish to spend their time manufacturing outrage both within your company and on social media.

The best way to deal with the innovation killing drama that racial equality brings is to never have it allowed into your organization to begin with.

And yet, I suspect that an awful lot of people in the tech sector would hold this view as well.

No, you guys have it all wrong. The feminism he’s talking about is the sort that is driven by estrogen psychosis. This sort of feminism is marked by entrapping men by pretending to want the D, then doing an about-face and crying sexual harassment followed by a lawsuit seeking massive damages. There’s no room for catty, conniving behavior of that sort in the tech industry; and, as we all know, women are genetically and hormonally predisposed to being catty and conniving.

If I happened to be interviewing for another position in IT, and the employer asked for my Facebook password, I would think it was a clever ploy to gauge my commitment to password security compared to my commitment to feathering my own nest. My boss agrees with me.

@roro80 #6 – As of January1, 2013, six states — California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and New Jersey — have forbidden current and potential employers from requesting social media passwords. Similar bills were in the works in 30 others states this year, some that targeted only employers and some that included schools, landlords and others; I haven’t found the status of those laws. I do know that a federal measure was voted down by Republicans in the House of Representatives in April.

@badgersdaughter – If I were interviewing for a position and the interviewer asked for social media passwords, I would leave. After telling them — politely and professionally, of course — that I will not work for a company that asks, and that I will be using social media to alert the public of the company’s very questionable hiring policies. I would then call an attorney, as I believe Washington is one of the states to have made the request illegal.

What amazes me the most about the New Misogynists is their sheer whininess. Even if I hated women as much as that dude does, I would not state this publicly because it would just be beneath me. I would go have sex with prostitutes or something, instead.

My wife has a pretty good set of 3 rules that govern most human interactions.

1)Don’t be stupid (note stupidity requires more than passive lack of intelligence–it is using your intelligence to fool yourself)
2)Don’t be greedy.
3)Don’t be an asshole

Now one might have difficulty in discerning whether one has crossed the line to violate any of these rules. However, if you find yourself trying to justify your actions, you’ve probably crossed the line.

I think atheist is trying to say: these douche-bro’s attitude comes from sexual frustration (because no woman in her right mind will have anything to do with them), and rather than be a public asshole about it, one should get over the frustration by paying for sex.

@11 — Yes, I remember when that was passed (I live in California), although I know people who have been asked since Jan 1 during interviews not for their password any more, but to friend the HR manager. It’s the sort of thing that’s really tough to enforce, and in my mind, it’s the same level of ethics as asking a woman if she’s pregnant or married or on the pill — something that interviewees will push back on in more plush job markets, but that employers will press in rough times for workers and for labor, which this certainly is. When people are desperate for jobs, they will take much more abuse — even illegal abuse — to get and keep one.

Is that what you meant atheist? Because I don’t think that anti-feminism comes from sexual frustration. It comes from entitlement and privilege and a whiny desperation at seeing man-only tech spaces become places where even geek doods have to buck up and treat women like people and equals.

Because I don’t think that anti-feminism comes from sexual frustration.

Oh, it’s a factor. I mean, have you ever listened to these people talk? It’s nonstop tirades about how women are all ultra-picky whores who have sex with everyone but them because they’re only attracted to jerks and alpha males instead of nice and supportive guys like MRAs.

I mean, have you ever listened to these people talk? It’s nonstop tirades about how women are all ultra-picky whores who have sex with everyone but them because they’re only attracted to jerks and alpha males instead of nice and supportive guys like MRAs.

That’s not sexual frustration, it’s entitlement to the bodies of women.

That’s not sexual frustration, it’s entitlement to the bodies of women.

Right, they think they’re entitled to sex. Reality and women disagree, they don’t get sex (or as much as they think they deserve; same difference), they fly into a rage. Frustration at it’s most base (and childish).

I think the frustration comes in with the obvious fact that their opinion about how the world is does not match up with the way the world actually is.
beyond the appearance of obvious differences in the sexes or skin pigmentation or speech accents there are not many differences between people at all and the artificial differences are just that artificial distinctions. These days such differences are tolerated less and that HR memo is in fact counter productive to any companies bottom line.
reality is unfair it does not care what you believe in.

So I’m guessing by ‘support for militant feminism’ they really mean ‘opposition to being sexually harassed and paid less’

(commence the sarcasm)

1. It’s not sexual harassment if it’s a joke.
2. Programmers and other tech industry people (including middle management and corporate officers) are paid by their aptitude and merit. Also, perceived aptitude and merit is totally not a function of your gender.

Sorry to be confusing. I guess I was trying to say that even if I somehow hated women the way the writer of “Stop Tech Feminism” obviously does, and even if I was somehow unable to accept the idea of women relating to me in a way other than sex, as he apparently is unable to do, I still would not act as whiny and entitled as he does. What I would instead do would be to just avoid situations where I had to deal with women as people, and seek out situations where I could keep things sexual. Not that I do in fact hate women, just that if I did, this is how I’d act.

But probably, the writer of “Stop Tech Feminism” feels so entitled to have women relate to him in a certain way, that the fact that he’s in situations where women don’t relate to him as sex objects or secretaries makes him mad. That is why he’s decided to write his whiny-ass blog with his oddly petulant picture at the top. Because he’s mad about being forced to relate to women as equals, and he wants the world to know about it.

women are all ultra-picky whores who have sex with everyone but them because they’re only attracted to jerks and alpha males instead of nice and supportive guys like MRAs.

The train of thought you’ve described here (and that which I have observed in a few of my classmates from time to time) just absolutely betrays no sense of irony and no social awareness. I mean in the same breath the woman is a whore but she’s picky? Then in the next breath she’s attracted to “jerks” but not somebody would would undoubtedly self-describe as a “nice guy once you get to know me better.”

Schism, I think you have some misconceptions on this particular subject. If these guys were really just purely sexually frustrated — no power play, no feelings of superiority for being smart smartypants men, no entitlement, no straight-up misogyny, just plain ol’ horniness — they’d go sit in front of the computer and rub one out instead of calling for all women who think women are people to get out of their workplace, where sex is probably not supposed to be a priority anyway. This is not about an urge for ejaculation.

You’re “tone policing” – Let’s say you’re working on DRM-opolis, the latest in mobile micro-transaction cash-grabbing games, and your boss comes in to demand you replace the database in your stack with another. You ask what required use cases it fits better than the one you’re using and you get in response:

“IT’S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU!

IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING YOU’D KNOW IT’S FUCKING BETTER!

“Hey!” you respond, “I don’t know what I did to deserve that, I just asked a question.”

“FOR FUCKS SAKE, STOP TONE POLICING” your boss screams and walks out.

If you’ve ever tried to communicate something to a feminist other than “I agree with the feminist ideology 100%”, you’re probably familiar with this situation. You have every right to question why you just got screamed at for asking a question or having a difference of opinion. Harsh language followed up with a claim of “tone policing” is simply another tactic feminists to stifle open discussion.

> no power play, no feelings of superiority for being smart smartypants men, no entitlement, no straight-up misogyny, just plain ol’ horniness

I can only speak for myself here, but it’s like there’s an interplay–maybe even a feedback loop–of misogyny and a smug sense of superiority that gives way to the belief that they should be getting more sex from fawning females. When that sex doesn’t come quick and easy enough, it’s something wrong with the woman and not their own attitudes.

It would be hilarious if there weren’t a lot of people in positions of influence who actually had these beliefs…

Umm. That.

I don’t know much of the inside of HR departments, so I don’t know how likely it is this kind of approach to screening would actually happen, and actually hurt people who’ve been vocally feminist somewhere on the net. I’d like to think that in a firm large enough to have any kind of policy and department, this is the sort of policy at least sure as hell wouldn’t actually wind up written in a manual anywhere…

That said, I also suspect it’s what’s not in the manual that’s going to burn people. No, it’s unlikely it says anywhere you can blackball someone for speaking up for women’s equality… But if there’s room in there for ‘judgement’ from HR, as opposed to a requirement they state ‘candidate disrecommended for the following specific behaviour(s) possibly costly to our corporate image’ clearly, I have to suspect nonsense like this could absolutely happen. HR rep X just mumbles they don’t like the cut of their jib, doesn’t quite say why…

And, of course, in a smaller firm, where the formal policy may not so much exist, or HR is just the boss, grepping around the web, I expect this would happen, absolutely, yes. Which yes, is pretty incredibly shitty. Mind, you probably don’t want to work for that boss anyway, and mind again, people do have to eat…

So, on balance, I’d like to say the two-faced piece of human (mumbles) who wrote this ‘foster open discussion and tolerance of difference of opinion’ and ‘but then screen out feminists’ doublespeak should be ashamed of themselves for adding this card to the long list of tactics attempting to chill discussion, and intimidate people into censor political opinion of any kind, but let’s face it, I expect anyone encouraging this kind of ‘screening’ is a long way beyond shame, by now.

Lyle @#38:…it’s like there’s an interplay–maybe even a feedback loop–of misogyny and a smug sense of superiority that gives way to the belief that they should be getting more sex from fawning females. When that sex doesn’t come quick and easy enough, it’s something wrong with the woman and not their own attitudes.

Precisely. In fact, pick-up artists exist solely to capitalize on this loop by claiming that the entitled angry dude is just using the wrong lines or not dressing like a big enough douchebag. Why else would women respond negatively? It certainly can’t be angrydude.

Yes, of course. But a feedback loop of misogyny and a smug sense of superiority is a decidedly different thing that simple sexual frustration. Sexual frustration is something that is felt by all sorts of people — most people of all genders and any level including zero of misogyny and entitlement. Non-assholes are perfectly capable of feeling sexual frustration and not deciding this means women don’t belong in the workplace, or that feminists are like Klansmen. The deciding factor as to whether this very very common thing becomes problematic as far as institutional sexism or workplace politics is not the sexual frustration, it’s the misogyny and entitlement.

Jadehawk wrote a great post in the slate thread about how rape culture manifests, and how it is so prevalent that vile attitudes toward women are so common as to be normalized.

The phrase ‘get sex from women’ strikes me as a good example. It is so common as to be unremarkable, but a bit of thought reveals something ugly. You would never use the word get to describe other social interactions. We have conversations, we share company, but when the topic becomes sex, suddenly women are referred to as if they are vending machines.

It seems to me that saying “If I was such an enormous asshole that no woman would have me, I would just hire a sex worker” is also reinforcing the notion that women are sex dispensers.

I hate you for making me read that page. But, the Petrie Multiplier writeup was nice. Yet another reason to make sure my next organization is able to actually hire women (unlike the one I was last a member of).

The irony of comparing feminism to Klansman is that the MRA movement has much more in common with white supremacism than feminism has. They’re both reality-inversion ideologies, claiming that a privileged group is really being persecuted and a persecuted group is really privileged.

And of course, manufacturing outrage is one of those professions where you don’t need a college degree, though it helps. Next thing you know they’ll be outsourcing all our outrage jobs to Indonesia.

That would be awful. The Indonesians would be outraged, whereas we would be unable to muster outrage over anything. “You want to take all the money from the poor and give it to the rich? You want to destroy the planet with CO2? Sure, no problem.”

It seems to me that saying “If I was such an enormous asshole that no woman would have me, I would just hire a sex worker” is also reinforcing the notion that women are sex dispensers.

Tethys, that makes sense. I do not want to reinforce such a notion.

Also, I may be engaging in projection when I impute this motive (the motive of frustrated sexuality) to the writer of “Stop Tech Feminism”. The emotions expressed in the screed are not sexual, they are paranoid, resentful and angry.

That Petrie Multiplier page should be printed out poster size and pasted on the wall in every tech department in every university in the country… or the world (perhaps even – do you think? – outside universities). Well done.